Pro-Lifers make it an issue to determine whether or not an elected official is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. The reality is that it does not matter who gets voted into office. In the Eighties, Ronald "Pro-Life" Reagan could not reverse Roe Vs. Wade.

George H. Bush and George W. Bush made no impact on Roe Vs. Wade.

If Pro-Lifers think that electing Pro-Lifers to an elected office will change Roe vs. Wade, their campaign is doomed. The Supreme Court made the Decision and the President of the United States cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Until they stop making Roe vs. Wade an issue for elected officials, their actions are doomed.

This is seriously the easiest win ever. The President cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision, but he can appoint justices who are pro-Life to the Court.

Republicans have gotten a lot of Supreme Court appointments and have appointed VERY conservative members to the court, like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. It's likely that if Republicans get one more appointment, they will have enough votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Pro-Lifers have succeeded by making Court appointments a campaign issue. US News and World Report reports, "John McCain, for one, doesn't seem to want to take any chances. Last week, he joined a long line of Republican presidential candidates who have pushed for a more conservative court when he promised to make Samuel Alito and John Roberts his "models" for judicial appointments.

But how conservative would a McCain presidency make the court—and how conservative is it already? The answers to these questions may be found in a new paper by Richard Posner, a judge who sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and William Landes, a law professor at the University of Chicago, that is now making its way through the academic community. In "Rational Judicial Behavior: A Statistical Study," Posner and Landes use a database that includes the political background and voting records of the past 70 years of Supreme Court justices—who appointed each justice and how the justices decided every case—to come up with a ranking, from most conservative to least conservative, of the 43 justices who have served on the court since 1937.

Their conclusion: Four of the five most conservative justices to serve on the Supreme Court since Franklin Roosevelt, including Roberts and Alito, are currently sitting on the bench today. Justice Anthony Kennedy, another current Republican appointee, is ranked No. 10. (The table has a full list.)" http://www.usnews.com...

==Other successes==

Pro-Lifers have sought various other ways to restrict abortion and are succeeding. They have criminalized taking a minor across state lines to have an abortion, without parental consent. In many states, it is criminal to perform an abortion without parental consent. They have sought to limit public funding of abortion, further restricting access (like with Planned Parenthood during the government shutdown negotiations). Pro-Lifers ensured that abortions would not be covered under Obama-care. Pro-Lifers have gotten late-term abortions banned in nearly every state. Pro-Lifers have allowed doctors to refuse to perform abortions, meaning that in religious states, it may be impossible to get an abortion, even in life threatening situations, because no doctor will be willing to perform the operation and the hospital cannot order them to do so, since they are now protected by freedom of religion, due to the efforts of Pro-lifers.

If they can't overturn it, they will whittle away at it as much as possible. These plans have all been successes.

"Four of the five most conservative justices to serve on the Supreme Court since Franklin Roosevelt, including Roberts and Alito, are currently sitting on the bench today..." My point exactly…Presently, and for the past few years, there has been a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. However, Roe vs Wade has not been overturned. The US Constitution allows for only 5 Supreme Court Justices to make the winning decision. With the most conserative court in years, Roe Vs. Wade still stands. They do not need a another justice to overturn Roe vs. Wade, if the "most conservative" Supreme Court will not do it.

Waiting For SupermanMy argrument is that their plan to eliminate Roe vs. Wade is doomed. Their plan of "Waiting for Superman" or a conservative president to be elected an to appoint a another member of the Supreme Court is stupid. The US Supreme Court Justices have lifetime terms. They step down when they feel like it. In addition, President Obama term ends in 2012. With 3 justices over 75 years of age, it is most likely that He will appoint another moderate to the Supreme Court. In addition, in all liklihood Barack Obama will be re-elected or the next president will be moderate. Pro-Lifers can continue to wait, dream and hope that the present and future justices will overturn Roe v. Wade. “If they can't overturn it, they will whittle away at it as much as possible. “ ... In other words, my opening argument is true: Pro-lifers cannot eliminate Roe vs. Wade. They are comfortable with small unknown victories.

AMERICAN HAS CHANGED.

As church attendnance declines in America, the Pro-Life fight in America is losing ground.

The most recent poll states that only 17% of Americans believe that a woman should not have anabortion under any circumstances. Only 17% are "true" Pro-Lifers. This is a drop of 4% in the past few years. http://www.cbsnews.com...; As the American people viewpoints changes on abortion, so does the electorate (the people they endorse).

This is not quite accurate. Anthony Kennedy is more correctly termed a swing vote, since he tends to be very conservative on some issues, but he has voted in the past with liberals on other issues, like abortion (such as in Planned Parenthood v. Casey). [1] He has also been somewhat liberal on gay rights, but has been very conservative on gun rights and the environment. Pro-lifers need to replace him or another liberal on the Court in order to get the 5 votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.

R2) Waiting for Superman

There are a couple problems with this. First, Obama is FAR from guaranteed re-election and justices usually serve well into their 80's before retiring, so Obama is unlikely to get another appointment. The second problem is that GW Bush was extremely smart to appoint someone so young to the Court as Justice Roberts, who is a baby compared to other appointments (he had only 2 years of judicial experience). So Pro-lifers are pursuing new strategies to load the Court with their appointments. Third, this ignores the ways that Pro-lifers try to whittle away at abortion rights, piece-by-piece. Fourth, Pro-lifers HAVE been successful because they have gotten EXTREMELY conservative justices on the Court, as the Posner & Lands study concluded: four of the five most conservative justices in US history are CURRENTLY serving on the Court. Pro-lifers have sought appointments that were extremely conservative, not moderate, and this was a HUGE deal because the Bush administration *utterly refused* to bow to Congressional pressure to appoint more moderate justices and instead held out for their first choices. This is an effective strategy that is on the cusp of succeeding, since they only need one more appointment to overturn Roe. The strategy can't have failed if they are THAT close.

R3) "Small unknown victories"

The majority of people seeking abortions are in poverty. Choking off funds from Planned Parenthood, banning abortions from being covered by government health care systems (which the poor all use), etc IS an effective strategy to prevent abortions. This is not some small unknown victory.

In addition, allowing doctors to refuse to follow a hospital's orders when asked to do an abortion is also a HUGE victory since it effectively denies the procedure in many areas.

Making minors unable to seek abortions is also a huge step. Most minors who are seeking abortions are doing so precisely because they don't want parents to find out, so requiring parental approval severely limits access to the procedure. These are not small victories.

Banning later term abortions is also big. Abortion may be legal, but if states can restrict abortion into the third trimester, and then partway into the second as well, this severely limits how many women are eligible.

R4) Viewpoints in America

It may be that 17% believe that a woman should not have an abortion "under any circumstances," but that question includes the scenario "she will die if she doesn't get the abortion" (like a ectopic pregnancy). Most pro-lifers allow health exceptions. This proves absolutely nothing.

These poll numbers are also pretty misleading. The Marist poll finds that "86% of Americans would significantly restrict abortion. 60% of Americans would limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother – or would not allow it at all." [5] This is a huge majority.

===========

Since I have a lot more characters, I'll just list more victories for Pro-Lifers.

1. "Six states have passed laws virtually banning all abortions after five months of pregnancy." [2]

2. Pro-lifers are pushing a bill in Ohio to ban abortion after the first fetal heart beat, which is approximately at six weeks. [2] This proves my argument that this will keep getting worse until women can only have abortions 1 day after conception, which means abortion will still be "legal" but restricted to a ridiculous extreme.

3. "Nowhere has the battle been more pitched than in Kansas, where the Legislature this session passed four anti-abortion measures and attempted to adopt strict new licensing rules that this week came within hours of closing down the state's last abortion provider." [3] Yes, it said "last." There is only one abortion provider left in Kansas, due to pro-life efforts.

4. "The pro-life movement has . . . the strongest pro-life caucus in the U.S. House that [we]'ve ever seen, and state legislatures have changed as well. Statistics compiled by NARAL Pro-Choice America show that 29 governors — including Kansan Sam Brownback — now oppose abortion, up from 21 before the 2010 elections." [3]

5. "By NARAL's count, 470 anti-abortion measures were taken up by states in 2011 as of June 28, up from 175 in 2010." [3]

6. Various states now require 72 hour waiting periods for abortions, require women to seek mandatory counseling before being allowed to have an abortion, and require abortion clinics to show women sonograms of their baby (trying to trigger an emotional connection and prevent the abortion). [3]

7. Indiana Governor cuts ALL Planned Parenthood funding. [4]

8. Although Kennedy upheld Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he also acknowledge that all but the most extreme restrictions on abortion would be allowed. "In 1992, the Court upheld the basic right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, it also expanded the ability of the states to enact all but the most extreme restrictions on women's access to abortion." [6]

I started this debate cause daily I see Pro-Lifers utilizing tactic that will not reverse Roe vs. Wade.

Pro-Lifers voting for Pro-Life candidates. This tactic will not reverse Roe Vs. Wade.

Firstly, let's all understand that the results of Roe vs. Wade made it legal for Doctors to perform abortions. Prior to that historical landmark decision, doctors were going to jail that performed abortions at the bequest of their patient.

Their is only one sure-fire way to reverse a US Supreme Court decision. 1. The US Supreme Court reverse that decsion . 2. A US Constitutional Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court primarily responsibility is determine the constituionality of laws and other court decsions and render a decision. Most of their landmark decsion was based upon the fact whether the case brought before them was constituional or not.

Therefore, if a Pro-Life Amendment is written in the Constitution, the US Supreme Court cannot decide against it. For example, the XX Amendment allowed for anyone over 18 years of age to vote in an election. Therefore, any law made to raise that age will be barred unconstituional by the courts.

The People of California provided an excellent example to follow. The did not wait for lying politicians to make a law defiing marriage. The people rallyed sign petitions to put a Proposition before the electorate. And with the majority votes, approved an Amendment to define Marriage.

My point, is this: PRO-LIFERS QUIT WAISTING TIME! There is 2 ways to make an Amendment to the Constitution. 1. By the United States Congresss (Don't bank on it!)
2. By the State Conventions and the approval of the legislatures of 38 states.

The latter is more than possible. If we the people in at least 34 states, petition on the ballot that our legislature have a Constituitional Amendment, it will happen.
PRO-LIFERS QUIT WAISTING TIME.